Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Kay Sude, No. B-157271.
Kay Sude, petitioner, for herself.
Reese Couch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 534]
Kay Sude (claimant) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her unemployment compensation benefits under the provisions of Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d).
The claimant was employed as a part-time English teacher for the Delaware County Intermediate Unit (Delco) for four years prior to June 16, 1977. On that day, school closed for the summer recess. Claimant testified that in prior years she and her immediate supervisor, Dr. Nicholas Spennato, had an oral understanding that claimant would return to her teaching position during the month of September but that in June of 1977 she was informed, because of uncertain student enrollment in her area of instruction, that she could not be promised anything and she would "just have to wait and see if there would be enough work."
On July 10, 1977, claimant filed an application for Special Unemployment Assistance (SUA) benefits.*fn1 The Bureau of Employment Security denied her claim on the basis that Delco had informed it that she had been given a reasonable assurance of reemployment as of the beginning of the next school term. The referee
[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 535]
and the Board, relying on Calvano v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 79, 368 A.2d 1367 (1977), and Chickey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 485, 332 A.2d 853 (1975), affirmed, finding that claimant expected to return to work with Delco at the commencement of the next school year and that she was not available for work during the period of time at issue. This appeal followed and we affirm.
An analysis of the cases following Chickey, where we held that school employees who expected and desired to work with their employers at the end of a summer recess were "unavailable for suitable work" under Section 401(d) of the Act, indicate that educational personnel are normally ineligible for benefits during a prescheduled vacation period, absent proof on their part that there is come substantial reason to believe they will not be recalled at the end of the recess. See Davis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 146, 394 A.2d 1320 (1978); Minnick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 648, 388 A.2d 798 (1978); Hyduchak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 575, 387 A.2d 669 (1978); Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 602, 383 A.2d 1327 (1978); Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 536, 383 A.2d 1303 (1978); Ritter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 68, 382 A.2d 1255 (1978); Calvano, supra. Cf. Section 402.1 of the Act, added by Section 5 of the Act of July 6, 1977, P.L. 41, 43 P.S. § 802.1 (recent amendment to the Act consonant with the holding of Chickey).
The Bureau, in making its determination of the claimant's ineligibility for benefits, relied on a notice which Delco claims to ...